What a Republican-Controlled Senate Would Mean for the Climate - by Jeff Spross

The midterm elections are now just days away.  And according to the New York Times’ forecasts, the Republicans have a 68 percent chance of taking back the Senate.

So just what would this mean for climate, energy, and environmental policy?  Broadly speaking, a Senate switch to the GOP wouldn’t shift the balance of power in the government that much.  But it would give right-wing politicians who oppose environmental laws and question the reality of climate change more leverage points to stymie and undercut various efforts.  And it does open the possibility that Republicans could ram through substantive policy changes if they can maneuver President Obama into another “grand bargain.”
...
Support from the legislature will also be important for President Obama’s credibility when the next round of international climate talks takes place in Paris in 2015.  Regardless of how next week’s election shakes out, Senate ratification of any treaty would be unlikely, and the Obama Administration is already pursuing various workarounds.  But trust between nations is crucial to bringing all the major players to the table and getting them to agree to binding cuts.  If other countries doubt the reliability of EPA regulations to cut emissions from power plants, cars, and so forth, or don’t feel Obama can credibly make promises with a GOP-controlled Congress hanging over his head, they may back out.

Which brings up the one big way the GOP could get around Obama’s veto, handcuff the EPA, and make other substantive policy changes.

As Seth Michaels laid out at Talking Points Memo, the White House and the U.S. Congress face two key chores over the next two years:  they must authorize new budgets to keep the government functioning, and they must raise the debt ceiling.  Since both bills have to be passed to avoid a shutdown or worse, Republicans could attach ancillary demands to them as the price of passage.  With majority power in both houses, and with the reconciliation process allowing a host of chances to pass budget bills with a simple majority vote in the Senate, Republicans would have largely unchecked power to shape those bills before they land on Obama’s desk.  The President would then have to decide whether to accept the demands or risk a shutdown or default.

What could those demands include?  In 2011, House Republicans tried to defund any efforts by the EPA to follow through on its regulations of greenhouse gas emissions, and have already undercut environmental protection rules with previous budget cuts.  They’ve also pushed for laws that would’ve handed the Energy Department new powers to curtail rulemakings by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); a bill that would ram through authorization of the Keystone XL pipeline; and a roll-back of the EPA’s authority to protect waterways, lakes, and the like.

With regard to the international climate talks, Republicans have also repeatedly threatened to cut off U.S. funding to the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and its Framework Convention on Climate Change.  Zack Colman at the Washington Examiner reported that the combined $10 million the U.S. gives to both projects constitutes the bulk of their budgets.  Another option for Republicans would be a law requiring any climate treaty to pass through Senate ratification.

Read More at What a Republican-Controlled Senate Would Mean for the Climate